Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site cae780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!amd!amdcad!cae780!gordon
From: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon)
Newsgroups: net.med,net.legal
Subject: Re: AMA anti-smoking drive
Message-ID: <1680@cae780.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Dec-85 15:47:02 EST
Article-I.D.: cae780.1680
Posted: Mon Dec 16 15:47:02 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 05:09:44 EST
References: <291@ur-tut.UUCP> <295@ur-tut.UUCP> <748@unc.unc.UUCP>
Reply-To: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon)
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix, Inc. (CAE Systems Division), Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 22
Xref: watmath net.med:2992 net.legal:2636

In article <748@unc.unc.UUCP> rentsch@unc.UUCP (Tim Rentsch) writes:
>While we're on the subject, how about if all cigarette advertisement
>(and chewing tobacco advertisement!) were simply made illegal?  If
>people want to smoke, that's their business;  but if the tobacco
>industry want other people to smoke, that's everyone's business.
>
>My contention is that advertising is behavior modification, not
>statement of views, and therefore is not protected under the bill of
>rights.  In support for this, note that TV cigarette ads were
>banned.  Why not just make it all tobacco ads?

Unless I *really* forgot the mechanism, TV cigarette ads were *not* banned -
the industry "voluntarily" stopped showing them -- precisely so they
couldn't be banned and become a precedent for banning other forms of
advertising ...

FROM:   Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems Division of Tektronix, Inc.
UUCP:   tektronix!teklds!cae780!gordon
	{ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amdcad!cae780!gordon 
        {nsc, hplabs, resonex, qubix, leadsv}!cae780!gordon 
USNAIL: 5302 Betsy Ross Drive, Santa Clara, CA  95054
AT&T:   (408)727-1234